SCOTUS Concealed Carry Case - NYSRPA v. Bruen — Decision … soon

[lowimpactuser]

Originally Posted by cbruno3333

if Roberts was the anti we suspect him to be - why wouldn't the 4 libs have granted cert, knowing he'd be favorable to their POV? Seems like a safe play to allow carry bans - or at a minimum a watered down permissive carry - if I were them.

There's a deliberation or jockeying that we're missing here, I suspect...

Dummy conservatives expect a stand up fight from stand up people. "Just say yes or no! Just decide one way or the others so we can get on with it!"

But they ARE getting their way, and getting it without much of a fight from the right. Why make a definitive decision that might raise your enemy against you while your enemy meekly accepts the status quo and grows weaker while you wait for them to be weak enough they are never a threat when they decide to finally fight?

Part of the conservative failure is to understand just how different their opponents are from them, and expecting their opponents to play a game with rules.

[Mute]

The problem is that the new "conservatives" on the USSC, namely Kavanaugh, Goresuch and ACB are still relatively new and have the naive belief that the left side of the court, though differing in opinion and outlook will act in good faith towards the U.S. Constitution. Thomas and Alito, who've been at this much longer do not have this delusion. You can see it in their dissents. The latter two knows they're in a war to try and protect us and the Constitution.

[wireless]

Originally Posted by Mute

The problem is that the new "conservatives" on the USSC, namely Kavanaugh, Goresuch and ACB are still relatively new and have the naive belief that the left side of the court, though differing in opinion and outlook will act in good faith towards the U.S. Constitution. Thomas and Alito, who've been at this much longer do not have this delusion. You can see it in their dissents. The latter two knows they're in a war to try and protect us and the Constitution.

lol. Cite some opinions by the new conservatives that indicates they do not understand the liberal justices won't act in good faith.

These justices have been sitting judges in federal courts, and I am sure have been following scotus decisions for sometime. They don't need to sit on SCOTUS to understand how their fellow judges vote.

Will Kavanaugh and ACB stand up for the 2A to hear the case? I'm not sure, although their only 2A opinions are pro-2a. We do know that if forced to hear a 2A case, they tend to vote for the 2A. That doesn't necessarily translate to cert though.

Gorsuch is a bit more conservative than both.

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by lastinline

Based upon their history in the last decade+, you are likely 100% correct.
All we are missing at this point is Fabio’s and KC’s predictions of same, and this thread can be closed.

Cartano got Distributed 4 times and then after getting complete record from lower court it got listed 6 more times!

https://www.supremecourt.gov/search....s/14-10078.htm

Maybe that’s why FGG and KC aren’t here posting that all is lost....

[press1280]

Originally Posted by cbruno3333

My question is why would they send this one to conference after mooting the dozen other carry cases last summer with RBG on the bench? What did this one have that the others didn't? And further, why relist it instead of denying it outright, in the mold of the others? If ACB was really the only new factor this time, not sure it would have even made it to conference if she was going to come down against it.

Also, with regard to the other carry cases last summer: if Roberts was the anti we suspect him to be - why wouldn't the 4 libs have granted cert, knowing he'd be favorable to their POV? Seems like a safe play to allow carry bans - or at a minimum a watered down permissive carry - if I were them.

There's a deliberation or jockeying that we're missing here, I suspect...

Every case has to go to conference, whether it's worthy or not. It's simply part of the process.
The re-lists are also now part of the process for cases that ARE worthy. I'm not aware of any cases recently where the court agrees to hear it on the first conference(I could be wrong).
As far as Roberts goes you picked the right word to describe him. But suspect isn't a sure thing which is why cases keep getting denied. Neither side trusts him.

[Offwidth]

Cert for Young would be more interesting. For Nichols even more.

[lowimpactuser]

Originally Posted by Paladin

Cartano got Distributed 4 times and then after getting complete record from lower court it got listed 6 more times!

https://www.supremecourt.gov/search....s/14-10078.htm

Maybe that’s why FGG and KC aren’t here posting that all is lost....

Pretty sure KC has moved to live a better, happier life and posts less often especially because he sees how hopeless fighting by conventional means are and doesn't like being depressed.

But I'll see if I can rustle him up.

[press1280]

Originally Posted by wireless

There is a different court composition. Roberts is no longer the swing vote.

Relist means they are still deciding or someone is writing an opinion about why the case should be heard, even though the court at large will deny hearing the case.

There is a circuit split on concealed carry right now and ACB is on the court. I still think reading this case just like the cases last year is incorrect, due to the court composition change.

Agreed. I saw a stat not too long ago showing when SCOTUS takes a case a large majority of the cases they take are overturned.
It's more likely than not that RBG was not going to vote to hear a public carry case especially when the lower courts' opinion is one she agrees with AND it's risky even with the makeup of the court back then.

[press1280]

Originally Posted by Paladin

Cartano got Distributed 4 times and then after getting complete record from lower court it got listed 6 more times!

https://www.supremecourt.gov/search....s/14-10078.htm

Maybe that’s why FGG and KC aren’t here posting that all is lost....

There's that although if we did get a per curiam I would expect it to be very limited and would give the 2nd circuit another shot at legal gymnastics.

The NYSRPA case that was ruled moot last year was relisted twice before getting granted so we are still looking good IMO.

[Fyathyrio]

There are also several storage, felon, & mental cases coming up for conference on the 16th. They have another variety to choose from, just like last year when they decided the right just wasn't important enough to protect.

[press1280]

Originally Posted by Offwidth

Cert for Young would be more interesting. For Nichols even more.

The question would be very basic for sure (does the 2A protect ANY carry outside the home period). The only issue is Young's counsel is pro se and some "technical" issue which dooms the case.

[abinsinia]

Originally Posted by press1280

The question would be very basic for sure (does the 2A protect ANY carry outside the home period). The only issue is Young's counsel is pro se and some "technical" issue which dooms the case.

Young has normal counsel , he was pro se (i.e. represented himself) in the original complaint, but now he has an attorney.

[abinsinia]

Should we get an update today on the SCOTUS Docket page ?

https://www.supremecourt.gov/search....ic/20-843.html

Seems like we should know more today , maybe the update is on another day.

[abinsinia]

Ok , so if they don't add "DISTRIBUTED" then it means it's getting held like the 10 cases we had last year.

If it's now held , that has meaning. I suspect it means they are waiting for Young.

[ShadowGuy]

Originally Posted by abinsinia

Should we get an update today on the SCOTUS Docket page ?

https://www.supremecourt.gov/search....ic/20-843.html

Seems like we should know more today , maybe the update is on another day.

Well it wasn't denied on today's list of orders.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/...21zor_3204.pdf

That is promising. Makes me thing, we are going to see an update to the docket for another relist. At least it wasn't a denial.

[ShadowGuy]

Originally Posted by abinsinia

Ok , so if they don't add "DISTRIBUTED" then it means it's getting held like the 10 cases we had last year.

If it's now held , that has meaning. I suspect it means they are waiting for Young.

That it a good point. I think most agree that Young is a better case in terms of merits, this would make sense.

[press1280]

The 9th circuit noted numerous deficiencies in the filings. It’s too into the weeds for me but something to worry about. We don’t want Scotus to take Young and then turn around and boot it on something stupid.

[press1280]

Originally Posted by abinsinia

Ok , so if they don't add "DISTRIBUTED" then it means it's getting held like the 10 cases we had last year.

If it's now held , that has meaning. I suspect it means they are waiting for Young.

Too early for that assumption. The next conference is next week so it should be distributed between now and then.

The scenario where the court "holds" the case usually occurs when a case is granted cert then several more end up at conference afterward. The court holds them because disposition of the granted case directly affects the others.

Young is 3 months away from filing at SCOTUS, and after briefings another few months go by. I do not see them holding this case for months for Young. If they really want Young that bad they'll just deny cert here and wait.
But if this case is granted cert, Young will then be held.

[gobler]

Cam Edwards had an interesting take on this. We have three outcomes with this.
1. They deny
2. They hold for conference
3. They take the case (both may be waiting for a decent being written)

If they deny it could be for Young, being a cleaner case to take.

If they deny both? Yes, at that point the courts will render themselves useless.

A basic rundown of what press1280 wrote.

[press1280]

Originally Posted by gobler

Cam Edwards had an interesting take on this. We have three outcomes with this.
1. They deny
2. They hold for conference
3. They take the case (both may be waiting for a decent being written)

If they deny it could be for Young, being a cleaner case to take.

If they deny both? Yes, at that point the courts will render themselves useless.

A basic rundown of what press1280 wrote.

Perhaps although there's one other angle which might make them want to pass on BOTH cases.
The NY case is CCW, Young is open carry. There are copycat cases in the pipeline (should get to SCOTUS in 1 year) from NJ and MD which are general permits to carry so the court doesn't have to grapple with the question. But I really will be pissed if they pass on both.

[wireless]

I still think the concealed vs open carry is irrelevant. If they want to write that into their decision then they will. Social issues like this they don't hold off for the perfect case. If it's a relatively good case, without major procedural or technical issues, and they have competent lawyer, then they will take the case. All they have to do is grant cert and answer the question, "does the 2nd amendment guarantee the right to carry a firearm outside of the home". Whatever nuance they want to put into their opinion they will.

[VAPORONE9]

Originally Posted by wireless

There is a different court composition. Roberts is no longer the swing vote.

Relist means they are still deciding or someone is writing an opinion about why the case should be heard, even though the court at large will deny hearing the case.

There is a circuit split on concealed carry right now and ACB is on the court. I still think reading this case just like the cases last year is incorrect, due to the court composition change.

I'd actually believe they are waiting for a dissent opinion to be written.

[FirearmFino]

Originally Posted by abinsinia

Ok , so if they don't add "DISTRIBUTED" then it means it's getting held like the 10 cases we had last year.

If it's now held , that has meaning. I suspect it means they are waiting for Young.

If the case is going to be distributed again, it will happen on April 12th for the conference on April 16th.

[Offwidth]

Originally Posted by press1280

The question would be very basic for sure (does the 2A protect ANY carry outside the home period). The only issue is Young's counsel is pro se and some "technical" issue which dooms the case.

They made it to en banc and won before that. If SCOTUS wants it, that would not be the deciding factor.

[Foothills]

Originally Posted by Paladin

Cartano got Distributed 4 times and then after getting complete record from lower court it got listed 6 more times!

https://www.supremecourt.gov/search....s/14-10078.htm

Caetano was unanimous to vacate her conviction, but it was a minority opinion that cited a fundamental right to self defense.

The composition of the court has changed substantially since Caetano.

But part of what they do is try to figure out what they can persuade their colleagues on to get a unanimous opinion.

You saw this in the fractured Covid houses of worship decisions. In general there was agreement that 25% capacity was probably safe with the same protocols as essential businesses. With ACB there was finally a majority to order it for NY and CA.

Roberts reluctance has consistently been to defer to the political branches wherever he can. On Obamacare yes he agreed that the penalty was a "tax." He also made it clear that Congress could not coerce the states, which gutted the much bigger Medicaid rules. And Roberts refusal to make it go away resulted in Republican wins across the board in the next election.

They need to find a way to get a large majority to agree on the circumstances when people should be able to carry outside the home. The attacks on Asians might do it. The widely understood right to carry a firearm at your place of business protects the Rooftop Koreans. If Kyle Rittenhouse had been invited and had stayed on the property of a business that invited him, he wouldn't be facing charges today.

Caetano was unanimous because everyone recognized that she had done everything the state had asked, and even the restraining order failed.

They don't want a carry case from the guys who took rifles into the state legislature.

The ideal case would be the victim of a hate crime who had applied for a permit and was denied, and subsequently was attacked.

The other element here is training. For a long time now people have gotten used to the idea that their pilot may be carrying. Those pilots get quite a bit of training however. You almost need a case where the hate crime victim has significant training and was still denied a permit. Then the liberals could join the opinion noting that there was a significant safety margin for the public with a trained individual. Maybe someone who completed "Guard Card" training but was denied a personal permit, despite being trained.

For the decision to endure, it needs to be more than 5-4.

[Phiremin]

Originally Posted by press1280

Perhaps although there's one other angle which might make them want to pass on BOTH cases.
The NY case is CCW, Young is open carry. There are copycat cases in the pipeline (should get to SCOTUS in 1 year) from NJ and MD which are general permits to carry so the court doesn't have to grapple with the question. But I really will be pissed if they pass on both.

I don’t think SCOTUS is concerned with the distinction. Besides, if you read NYSRPA’s petition for cert, it doesn’t even mention “concealed”. It only asks if there is a right to carry outside the home and, if so, is the concept of “justifiable need” approved by the government an infringement.

After Peruta, no lawyer worth his or her salt would risk seeing their question misinterpreted as “is their a right to conceal a weapon”?

Besides, how else would a plaintiff challenge “justifiable need” laws when many of these states are no open carry, but concealed carry is permitted with “justifiable need”? Theoretically, you could challenge open carry, win the case and then have a state impose justifiable need. After all, with the exception of the 9th circuit (no right to carry), most circuit courts do contemplate a right outside the hone

[press1280]

2 of the judges would agree with that if we look at the Peruta dissent. You may be able to also argue the same for Kavanaugh in the Rogers dissent. While I believe they aren’t looking to go down that rabbit hole (NY isn’t really making an issue of it either), the question begs to be asked since they’ve denied so many cases in the past.

[Librarian]

Scotus blog page for this case: https://www.scotusblog.com/case-file...inc-v-corlett/

SCOTUS Docket page: https://www.supremecourt.gov/search....ic/20-843.html

[abinsinia]

Originally Posted by FirearmFino

If the case is going to be distributed again, it will happen on April 12th for the conference on April 16th.

I was trying to find more evidence that the case is held. I discovered that the new conference was 4/16 which you noted above. So it makes sense they may not reschedule things for that conference so far in advance.

I went to this page,

https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docket.aspx

It has a little search box. So I typed in "4/16/2021" .. It pops up 57 pages, which is at least 100 cases that have already been distributed for 4/16.

Cases for 4/1 and 4/16 were set to "DISTRIBUTED" roughly around the same time frames.

I'm not sure if that means much, but it seems like they could distribute the cases whenever they want.

[Phiremin]

Originally Posted by abinsinia

I was trying to find more evidence that the case is held. I discovered that the new conference was 4/16 which you noted above. So it makes sense they may not reschedule things for that conference so far in advance.

I went to this page,

https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docket.aspx

It has a little search box. So I typed in "4/16/2021" .. It pops up 57 pages, which is at least 100 cases that have already been distributed for 4/16.

Cases for 4/1 and 4/16 were set to "DISTRIBUTED" roughly around the same time frames.

I'm not sure if that means much, but it seems like they could distribute the cases whenever they want.

I could be wrong, but I get the impression that cases get re-listed more or less by default until they are acted upon (grant, deny, hold or if the court makes a request like a reply brief or complete record).
For example, even if a justice is writing a dissent from cert, the case just keeps getting re-listed even though the denial may have happened weeks ago.
All the actions described above (grant, deny, request a reply brief etc) are more or less transparent with the exception of a “hold”.
So, if cases have already been distributed for the next conference and this one isn’t in the list, I have to wonder if it’s being held until they can take a look at Young.

[Fedora]

Originally Posted by Phiremin

So, if cases have already been distributed for the next conference and this one isn’t in the list, I have to wonder if it’s being held until they can take a look at Young.

That seems like quite a good thing, to me. Thank you.

[IVC]

Originally Posted by Fedora

That seems like quite a good thing, to me. Thank you.

Careful with reading tea leaves. This one is in proverbial limbo at the moment.

One school of thought is that the case might have been rejected, but a few justices are writing a dissent. That's as plausible as any other explanation. Best to wait a few days and see what happens.

The big picture is that we need a good 2A case and we need it soon. We need it on "bear = carry outside the home" and we need it on "AW = modern guns protected by 2A." Either one will do nicely, we just need to be patient. The court recently changed and we haven't seen enough to make an assessment of what to expect.

[lastinline]

When was the last time the democrats introduced the process to simply repeal the 2A?.......I’m surprised they haven’t.

[press1280]

Originally Posted by Phiremin

I could be wrong, but I get the impression that cases get re-listed more or less by default until they are acted upon (grant, deny, hold or if the court makes a request like a reply brief or complete record).
For example, even if a justice is writing a dissent from cert, the case just keeps getting re-listed even though the denial may have happened weeks ago.
All the actions described above (grant, deny, request a reply brief etc) are more or less transparent with the exception of a “hold”.
So, if cases have already been distributed for the next conference and this one isn’t in the list, I have to wonder if it’s being held until they can take a look at Young.

You're basically correct on this, but I'm pretty sure they will not hold a case for another which isn't even on the docket. They'll just deny cert, knowing that it's easy enough for someone to file another lawsuit if the court makes a ruling on the issue later.

[wireless]

Anyone know what the twitter crowd of 2A legal "analysts" are saying? I saw cam's post but that's it. Haven't seen anything else.

[press1280]

Originally Posted by wireless

Anyone know what the twitter crowd of 2A legal "analysts" are saying? I saw cam's post but that's it. Haven't seen anything else.

I wouldn't trust them if they say they know something. We have a lot going for us (circuit split, 5 pro 2A justices plus a maybe, the 2A legal framework is currently in a state of chaos, just had a case dismissed last year), but that doesn't necessarily mean anything.

[press1280]

Originally Posted by lastinline

When was the last time the democrats introduced the process to simply repeal the 2A?.......I’m surprised they haven’t.

Only if they're actually honest would they do such a thing. No, they'd rather have the courts essentially nullify it and claim the Amendment was written to preserve National Guard service.

[wireless]

Originally Posted by press1280

I wouldn't trust them if they say they know something. We have a lot going for us (circuit split, 5 pro 2A justices plus a maybe, the 2A legal framework is currently in a state of chaos, just had a case dismissed last year), but that doesn't necessarily mean anything.

I'm more curious what lawyers think about them taking the case or not, not inside information.

Cert petitions granted this term:
Granted after the 1st conference = 21
Granted after the 2nd = 31
Granted after the 3rd = 11
Granted after the 4th = 10
Granted after the 6th = 1
Granted after the 7th = 1
Granted after the 9th = 2
Granted after the 21st = 1

4th relist is the magic number it seems like

[press1280]

Originally Posted by wireless

I'm more curious what lawyers think about them taking the case or not, not inside information.



4th relist is the magic number it seems like

Do you have a link for that?

I'd like to look further into those stats. For example, some of the grants could be per curiams, others may be granted as a result of another similar case being decided recently.
In recent years a case being granted on the 1st conference were becoming rare. Perhaps they are changing course again, although I do see they're still relisting cases 20+ times.

[Ron Jeremey]

Originally Posted by press1280

Do you have a link for that?

I'd like to look further into those stats. For example, some of the grants could be per curiams, others may be granted as a result of another similar case being decided recently.
In recent years a case being granted on the 1st conference were becoming rare. Perhaps they are changing course again, although I do see they're still relisting cases 20+ times.

https://www.scotusblog.com/2015/09/t...cs-of-relists/